Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 9 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›
   801. Shredder Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:51 PM (#4291394)
Edit: Kiko already covered it, but the open primary and party affiliation issues have particular relevance in Ohio. Your ballot for the general is based on which primary you voted in. There were a lot more votes in the Republican primary this year than four years ago, and vice versa.

On another note, I find all of the banter about the polling of "independents" to be pretty funny. You guys are aware that Independent does not necessarily mean "in the middle of Democrats and Republicans" I hope. There was a bit of a movement of "Independents" away from the GOP to the right. Something about tea, I think.
   802. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4291395)
Actually, that makes the question even more relevant. How hard is it to change the party identification attached to your voter registration? According to CNN exit polls, for example, 25% of voters in the Iowa caucus self-identified as either Democrats or Independents and 17% self-identified as "Moderate or Liberal" (as opposed to "Somewhat Conservative" or "Very Conservative").

Well, I think "moderate/liberal" means something different to a registered Republican than it does to a Democrat or true independent. Ron Paul got the most votes by moderate/liberals followed very distantly by Romney.

As for changing your ID it isn't hard at all. I believe nowadays you can do it on the internet for most states.
   803. GregD Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4291402)
My guesses:

Popular Vote: Obama 50, Romney 49, scattered 1
EC: Obama 297, Romney 241
Senate: Dem 50, Rep 48, Ind caucasing w Dems 2
House: Reps 239, Dems 196

   804. Shredder Posted: November 02, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4291404)
Party Affiliation: Ohio has a semi-open primary, You may vote the primary ballot of the political party with which you currently wish to be affiliated. If you voted the primary ballot of a different political party, you will complete a statement at your polling place confirming the change in your political party affiliation.

From this site.
   805. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4291405)
   806. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:03 PM (#4291407)
Apparently priests are intrinsically evil.
   807. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:04 PM (#4291409)
Politico has an article addressing the issue discussed upthread. "Is Romney's Lead With Independents Just a Mirage?"

It makes a strong case for how Romney can lead substantially with Independents but still lose the race.

From the linked letter, "In the new plan, only Catholic people can be treated by Catholic institutions." Hey, if you can't beat 'em, lie your ass off.

Many people in our Diocese are presently without work. Our Catholic Charities is serving more and more
people who are unemployed or under employed and can barely keep up with the demands. Work is so critical
to the family and to the sense of human dignity. An economy which does the most for the common good is an
economy that works and provides people gainful employment for the country’s citizens. A government that
works pays its bills and models for citizens what it means to be responsible and contributive.
Because if that doesn't say, 'Vote Republican', what possibly could?
   808. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:05 PM (#4291410)
Party Affiliation: Ohio has a semi-open primary, You may vote the primary ballot of the political party with which you currently wish to be affiliated. If you voted the primary ballot of a different political party, you will complete a statement at your polling place confirming the change in your political party affiliation.From this site.


And from CNN Exit Polls, in 2012, 31% of Republican primary voters in Ohio considered themselves Democrats or Independents and 34% considered themselves moderate or liberal. In 2008, only 20% of Republican primary voters considered themselves Democrats or Independents (the % moderate or liberal was the same, 34%).
   809. Tilden Katz Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4291411)
Game changer - Papal representative says Obama voters risk eternal damnation.


In 20 years being opposed to same-sex marriage will be on the same level as being anti-miscegenation. Will the Pope just have a "revelation" that God's OK with gays or what?
   810. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4291413)
The Ohio exit poll is very useful because you got to figure that somewhere between 10 to 20% of those voting in the primary lean Democrat and that lean does help explain why Obama is killing Romney in early voting exit polls despite a much tighter race based on who is requesting ballots in Ohio.
   811. Shredder Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4291414)
@808 - Right. I think a lot of people (not necessarily here) hear "Republican and Democratic ballots" and think "Republican and Democratic votes". They aren't necessarily the same.
   812. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:13 PM (#4291416)
Is thuggery a a tactic of winning campaigns? Would seem more like a sign of desperation, but judge for yourself: Toledo Union Officials Caught Stealing Romney Signs.
   813. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:19 PM (#4291417)
Unfortunately it doesn't look like anyone did a North Carolina exit poll for the primary.

Is thuggery a a tactic of winning campaigns? Would seem more like a sign of desperation, but judge for yourself: Toledo Union Officials Caught Stealing Romney Signs.

No that is just a tactic of unions. Doesn't say anything about the campaign.
   814. Shredder Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:26 PM (#4291419)
Stealing yard signs is much, much worse than just stealing peoples' ballots and filling in Republican votes.
   815. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:27 PM (#4291420)
Here in Seattle, the election website has this warning:

It’s been reported that King County GOP is offering to collect and return voters’ ballots.

We recommend that voters return ballots to an official King County Elections ballot drop-off location or through the US Postal Service. Voters may use the online ballot tracker to confirm that King County has received their ballot.


I feel like there are going to be a lot of stories about low-level election shenanigans on Tuesday.
   816. Mefisto Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:28 PM (#4291421)
Given the way the Republican Party tries to steal votes wholesale, it seems churlish of them to complain about some retail action.
   817. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:28 PM (#4291422)
Stealing yard signs is much, much worse than just stealing peoples' ballots and filling in Republican votes.


Clearly an Obamunist plant. Shame! Shame!
   818. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4291423)
I feel like there are going to be a lot of stories about low-level election shenanigans on Tuesday.


A lot of stories that get ignored, and a few stories about two scary negroes in ninja costumes scaring decent white folks from voting.
   819. Shredder Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:33 PM (#4291424)
Clearly an Obamunist plant. Shame! Shame!
And something that could have been easily fixed with a voter ID law.
   820. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:41 PM (#4291428)
Savage gibbering negroes bused in for Obama!. Spin that, hippies!

(the comments are gold)
   821. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:43 PM (#4291430)
Is thuggery a a tactic of winning campaigns? Would seem more like a sign of desperation, but judge for yourself: Toledo Union Officials Caught Stealing Romney Signs.
I would have said that posting links to yard sign theft was a sign of desperation, but, hey...
   822. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:46 PM (#4291432)
Actually, that makes the question even more relevant. How hard is it to change the party identification attached to your voter registration?

I don't know, but without an organized Rush Limbaugh-style "Operation Chaos," it's hard to imagine this was happening on a widespread basis in places with closed or semi-closed primaries such as Florida and N.C. (Ohio, obviously, is different.)
   823. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 02, 2012 at 11:50 PM (#4291435)
I would have said that posting links to yard sign theft was a sign of desperation, but, hey...
Doesn't even seem like YC's heart is in it.
   824. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 03, 2012 at 12:18 AM (#4291442)
Maybe he's busy, collecting votes for the King County GOP.
   825. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 03, 2012 at 12:28 AM (#4291445)
From NBC:

Strong approval for the president’s handling of Sandy

The polls were conducted after Hurricane Sandy slammed into the East Coast, and seven in 10 likely voters in Florida and Ohio approve of the president’s job in handling the hurricane and its aftermath.
“The response was overwhelmingly positive, and that was occurring across party lines,” says Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.


In TFA, among LV, NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist has Obama up by 6% in Ohio, and by 2% in Florida.

Woohoo!!
   826. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 03, 2012 at 12:30 AM (#4291446)
Since I know how much you guys love polls, the new Marist poll of Ohio has Obama +6 ... with a D+9 sample. (2008 was D+5. Apparently the Marist people were in a coma in 2010.)
   827. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 03, 2012 at 12:32 AM (#4291448)
Romney up 51-45 in Florida, according to a Miami Herald poll. With a D+5 sample even.
   828. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 03, 2012 at 12:35 AM (#4291450)
Ding dong romney dead
   829. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 03, 2012 at 12:42 AM (#4291452)
Keep in mind Florida is a pure gimme state for obama
   830. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: November 03, 2012 at 12:44 AM (#4291454)
I'm kinda curious now as to which regular is using "Jack Carter" as a new account. That was one of the nice fringe benefits of admin-ing - you could see who had multiple accounts pretty quickly. The regulars that *didn't* have alternate accounts seemed to be the exception (no names due to privacy concerns).

   831. Jay Z Posted: November 03, 2012 at 12:44 AM (#4291455)
Close and ill-tempered elections are part of the norm.


From 1896 to 1992 there were 25 presidential elections. How many were really close?

1896-1900 were moderately close, 5% popular vote. 1904, 1908, not close. 1912 the R vote was split, but it really wasn't a close election. 1916 was close. From 1920 to 1956, 10 elections, only 1948 was close, and Truman still won pop. vote by 5%. Then close in 1960, blowout 1964, close 1968, blowout 1972, close 1976. 1980 wasn't very close, ditto 1984 and 1988. Really since 1992 has been a relatively close period, but before that close elections were more the exception than the norm.
   832. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 03, 2012 at 12:59 AM (#4291458)
1996 (8.5%, 220 EV) and 2008 (7.25%, 192 EV) weren't close, either.
   833. zenbitz Posted: November 03, 2012 at 01:06 AM (#4291459)
@ 721 this is pretty much the plot of an alt history series by Harry Turtledove. There is a late 19th century USA/CSA mexican war (franco prussian analog).

WWII does happen though, after a confederate artillery sargent writes a book, and takes over the csa. Ends with "negro" concentration camps and Richmond, VA getting nuked.
   834. Guapo Posted: November 03, 2012 at 01:16 AM (#4291461)
From that humanevents.com story:

Those who read this also read:

-Romney campaign unleashes the most powerful political ad of our generation
-Obama bullies a girl
-More illegal double votes found in Ohio, New York, and Rhode Island
-Are the TV anchors rooting for President Obama?
-Leftist Pouts Off Set After Grilling on Fox News


I was going to make up a fake one and insert it in there, but couldn't come up with anything as good as the real ones.
   835. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 03, 2012 at 01:52 AM (#4291466)
A lot of regulars have multiple accounts?
   836. SteveF Posted: November 03, 2012 at 02:02 AM (#4291467)
A lot of regulars have multiple accounts?
   837. Jim Wisinski Posted: November 03, 2012 at 02:03 AM (#4291468)
A lot of regulars have multiple accounts?


That surprised me too. I certainly don't have one.
   838. Jim Wisinski Posted: November 03, 2012 at 02:09 AM (#4291471)
Since the RCP national average is getting brought up again it's worth pointing out that in the thing the matters, the Electoral College, RCP is currently predicting Obama to win the election 290-248.
   839. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 03, 2012 at 02:32 AM (#4291472)
A lot of regulars have multiple accounts?

Romney is probably ahead even at BBTF, once you get rid of the sock puppets.
   840. Shredder Posted: November 03, 2012 at 02:39 AM (#4291474)
YC, that sounds suspiciously like something Joe and Snapper would say.
   841. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 03, 2012 at 03:01 AM (#4291475)
Romney is probably ahead even at BBTF, once you get rid of the sock puppets.

Ha ha. Maybe we need UnskewedBBTF.com.
   842. CFiJ Posted: November 03, 2012 at 04:42 AM (#4291482)
Game changer - Papal representative says Obama voters risk eternal damnation.

It's bullshit just like this that has made the Philippines a hell-hole when it comes to women's health.
   843. bunyon Posted: November 03, 2012 at 07:34 AM (#4291495)
836 is, perhaps, the best post ever at BBTF.

Sorry to step out on the discussion yesterday. I was reminded I have a job. Dammit.
   844. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 03, 2012 at 07:50 AM (#4291497)
NBC/WSJ has Florida 49-47 for Obama and Ohio 51-45 for Obama. The Florida poll is the same day as the Mason-Dixon +6 for Romney in Florida reminds me I shouldn't even be looking at this kind of stuff. It's worse than the hot stove league.
   845. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 03, 2012 at 07:56 AM (#4291499)
It was overall a strong night of polling for Obama. You can see this in any of the aggregators you want to look at - RCP, 538, Pollster, whatever.

Of course, that's only a difference of a percentage point or two in expectation, and on top of that the polls could be wrong. Making a big deal of a single poll is dumb, but so is making a big deal of a single day of polling. Barring anything weird, we're probably locked in on the polling of this election. The question that remains is whether the electorate was well polled or not.
   846. bunyon Posted: November 03, 2012 at 07:59 AM (#4291500)
NBC/WSJ has Florida 49-47 for Obama and Ohio 51-45 for Obama. The Florida poll is the same day as the Mason-Dixon +6 for Romney in Florida reminds me I shouldn't even be looking at this kind of stuff. It's worse than the hot stove league.

And just as hard to turn away from.
   847. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 03, 2012 at 08:04 AM (#4291501)
And just as hard to turn away from.

Yep. I'm just glad I have plenty to keep me busy until Tuesday. Any word about the election in Jersey? What happens if they push it back a couple of days? The rest of the country votes and seals the results until Jersey votes?
   848. bunyon Posted: November 03, 2012 at 08:06 AM (#4291502)
I think we're going to end up hearing some weird stuff about voting in New York and New Jersey. And I think the election will be close enough that it will matter. 50 years from now folks in their 20s today will be griping about one of these guys stealing the election.
   849. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 03, 2012 at 08:18 AM (#4291503)
I think we're going to end up hearing some weird stuff about voting in New York and New Jersey. And I think the election will be close enough that it will matter. 50 years from now folks in their 20s today will be griping about one of these guys stealing the election.

I don't think so as both states are going for Obama. I'm just wondering if the results of the election will be delayed.
   850. bunyon Posted: November 03, 2012 at 08:23 AM (#4291505)
I don't think there will be actual irregularities or that they'll matter. I just think under the conditions, things won't go as usual and it'll breed stories.

I suspect they'll expand the hours of voting and report hours later than usual.
   851. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: November 03, 2012 at 08:36 AM (#4291509)
Romney is probably ahead even at BBTF, once you get rid of the sock puppets.

So your theory is that this thread consists of you, Kehoskie, and one Obama supporter posting under multiple identities?

Sounds about as likely as anything else you've posted here.

   852. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: November 03, 2012 at 08:42 AM (#4291511)
The rest of the country votes and seals the results until Jersey votes?


The networks would go apeshit.

I think we're going to end up hearing some weird stuff about voting in New York and New Jersey. And I think the election will be close enough that it will matter. 50 years from now folks in their 20s today will be griping about one of these guys stealing the election.

I don't think so as both states are going for Obama. I'm just wondering if the results of the election will be delayed.


What could happen is a low turnout. Obama still carries both states easily, but his national popular vote total takes a hit, leading to Repub cries of illegitimate.
   853. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 03, 2012 at 08:59 AM (#4291517)
Boy, that'd be awful if they stopped respecting Obama's legitimacy.
   854. Guapo Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:12 AM (#4291518)
So has anyone in this thread gone on record as predicting a Romney win? (I couldn't check the thread at work yesterday and am too "busy" to go through and try and figure it out)
   855. spike Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:16 AM (#4291519)
   856. GregD Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:25 AM (#4291523)
From 1896 to 1992 there were 25 presidential elections. How many were really close?

1896-1900 were moderately close, 5% popular vote. 1904, 1908, not close. 1912 the R vote was split, but it really wasn't a close election. 1916 was close. From 1920 to 1956, 10 elections, only 1948 was close, and Truman still won pop. vote by 5%. Then close in 1960, blowout 1964, close 1968, blowout 1972, close 1976. 1980 wasn't very close, ditto 1984 and 1988. Really since 1992 has been a relatively close period, but before that close elections were more the exception than the norm.


I'll take your point that most elections aren't razor thin, but I was responding to the idea that elections used to be gentler. The opposite. Every opponent was the bastard child of a prostitute who planned to defecate, literally, on the Constitution.

I think it makes sense to think of four big eras:

1) Nobody votes but people with wigs--founding to roughly 1820--these elections can be amazingly close (1800) and very bitter but aren't always stirring up the populace. Though they surely can as in the Revolution of 1800 talk and a leading historian has renamed The Era of Good Feelings the Era of Bad Feelings

2) Expanding the vote, expanding conflict--1824ish (it varies by state so you can say this isn't really in place in 1812 but clearly is by 1828-1832) when every election is an apocalypse. First white men without property, then black men. Not all are close but all are amazingly bitter. Most elections are literally bloodbaths and mob warfare. You have to fight your way to the polls.

3) Taking back the vote, enforcing calm--from 1896 to 1968, basically. We think of disfranchisement in the South but nationwide the vote is reduced 1/3 as states push more restrictive laws. The US goes from the highest-turnout democracy to one of the lower-turnout democracies. This produces by the 1940s-1950s the consensus view that people take as "normal" but was actually just a small phase of American democracy. And even then it wasn't always so nice--the Red Scare. Not to mention for the people excluded. But presidential elections were usually restrained.

4) Opening the vote, opening the floodgates. 1968-present. Expanding the vote first back to black Southerners then to 18 year olds. And expanding conflict.

It's hard to figure out exactly how women's enfranchisement changed things and exactly when, since the presumption for the first decade or so is that women are voting with their husbands, and since women were publicly active for decades before the 19th century.

Anyway, democracy is conflict. It doesn't produce consensus; it doesn't produce technocratic solutions. It produces conflict, the same way a football contest does. And it creates a race to 51% that will often produce close elections but produces enormous productions of bitterness even when it doesn't.

The hard part is to make sure that the conflict it produces isn't literally war, which is a common path of democracies and which we have mostly--with one big exception!--avoided, with 1-2 other near misses.

But where we are seems to me to be very much in line with where we have been.
   857. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:28 AM (#4291526)
I take it Linda McMahon isn't going to win? I'm really sick of her ads on tv all the time. If it wasn't for her, all we would have had is the occasional Gillibrand ad which were pretty low key as she has no chance of losing. The gf loves Gillibrand.
   858. DKDC Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:39 AM (#4291532)
Linda McMahon is more likely to have her uncle show up on her doorstep with a giant check than she is to win the election.

I'm in the same boat here in the northern burbs of NYC - we get almost no political ads, so I almost look forward to Linda offering change we can believe in.
   859. Spahn Insane Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:39 AM (#4291533)
Boy, that'd be awful if they stopped respecting Obama's legitimacy.

I know. If that happens, they might resort to lockstep opposition to his entire agenda or something.

Actually, should Obama win, I fully expect his second term to feature at least rumblings of impeachment over some nonsense or other, provided the R's continue to hold the House.
   860. Spahn Insane Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:40 AM (#4291534)
Wait--Ed McMahon is Linda McMahon's uncle? No way.

EDIT: Nah, can't be right. McMahon's Linda's married name. Congrats on getting me to fall for it (pre-coffee :-) ).
   861. Spahn Insane Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:41 AM (#4291536)
I'm in the same boat here in the northern burbs of NYC - we get almost no political ads, so I almost look forward to Linda offering change we can believe in.

Change? Shite, with her wealth, she should be offering C-notes.
   862. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:42 AM (#4291537)
A lot of regulars have multiple accounts?


It wouldn't be shocking if folks like Dan, or Dayn, or Neyer - actual personalities with skin in the game when it comes to name recognition - had secondary accounts for posting snark or in off-topic threads they'd prefer not to have associated to their professional reputations.
   863. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:44 AM (#4291538)
If it wasn't for her, all we would have had is the occasional Gillibrand ad which were pretty low key as she has no chance of losing.


There's a reasonable chance that the next congress will seat 20+ female Senators, one of which may very well be the nation's first openly gay/lesbian congress-critter.
   864. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:48 AM (#4291541)
Actually, should Obama win, I fully expect his second term to feature at least rumblings of impeachment over some nonsense or other, provided the R's continue to hold the House.


Given an Obama win on Tuesday, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that the Gooper House tries to impeach over "Benghazi-gate." Of course, given an electorate that reelects Obama you have to project a 53/47 Dem majority in the Senate at least, so it's not like impeachment would net a removal from office. But the GOP House is a coin flip chance of doing it just to score the ability to say "Obama was impeached" in the 2016 election cycle.
   865. DA Baracus Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:49 AM (#4291542)
Since every election here is a no contest, I haven't seen many candidate ads but there's plenty of referendum ads. Those poor kids are going to be heartbroken when I vote against their charter school.
   866. DKDC Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:49 AM (#4291543)
EDIT: Nah, can't be right. McMahon's Linda's married name. Congrats on getting me to fall for it (pre-coffee :-)).


I thought about going with a wrestling reference, but I figured Ed was more plausible than Vince for a Senate general election candidate.
   867. spike Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:50 AM (#4291544)
I'll assume you are in Georgia then - I am voting no too.
   868. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:52 AM (#4291545)
   869. DA Baracus Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:55 AM (#4291546)
I'll assume you are in Georgia then - I am voting no too.


Yup, Atlanta. Still pissed about T-SPLOST miserably failing.
   870. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 03, 2012 at 09:58 AM (#4291548)
had secondary accounts for posting snark or in off-topic threads they'd prefer not to have associated to their professional reputations.


I've always wondered about people who DO use second accounts, if it's worth the effort.
Having to log in and out all the time, having to remember which account said what, and who replied to whom...

It would be too much of a hassle for someone as lazy as me.
   871. GregD Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:01 AM (#4291549)
Wait--Ed McMahon is Linda McMahon's uncle? No way.
But Ed McMahon is like a great-great-nephew of Patrice de Mac-Mahon, French president in the 1870s who prior to that led the French Army in slaughtering the Communes of 1870-71
   872. Spahn Insane Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:04 AM (#4291550)
Given an Obama win on Tuesday, I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that the Gooper House tries to impeach over "Benghazi-gate." Of course, given an electorate that reelects Obama you have to project a 53/47 Dem majority in the Senate at least, so it's not like impeachment would net a removal from office. But the GOP House is a coin flip chance of doing it just to score the ability to say "Obama was impeached" in the 2016 election cycle.

Pretty much my thoughts. I was gonna mention the likely Dem Senate, but when Clinton was impeached by the GOP-held Senate they still didn't have anywhere near the 2/3 majority they needed to remove him from office (no Dems voted guilty). Didn't stop the House from doing its thing.

I agree "Benghazi-gate" is the most likely "basis"...
   873. Tilden Katz Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:16 AM (#4291555)
I say 70-30 in favor of the House impeaching him, with Benghazi being the stated reason because "being black" probably won't fly. Various right wing blogs are calling for him to be impeached between election day and inauguration day because of that.
   874. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:19 AM (#4291556)
Didn't stop the House from doing its thing.
And it cost the GOP big-time: Recall in the 1998 elections they lost five seats, the worst midterm performance in 64 years by a party not holding the presidency, and Newt was bounced from the Speaker's slot soon after.
   875. JL Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:23 AM (#4291558)
I tend to think they won't go the impeachment route, in part because I think the republicans lose a couple of seats in the house. That being said, I think Fast and Furious is the more likely vehicle if they do.
   876. JL Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:26 AM (#4291560)
Also, part of me has always wondered if Jolly St Nick and Ray are the accounts of conjoined twins. Arguing virtually rather than in person.

Either that or a Anthony Perkins "Psycho" character.
   877. 'Spos Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:26 AM (#4291561)
had secondary accounts for posting snark or in off-topic threads they'd prefer not to have associated to their professional reputations.



I've always wondered about people who DO use second accounts, if it's worth the effort.
Having to log in and out all the time, having to remember which account said what, and who replied to whom...

It would be too much of a hassle for someone as lazy as me.
   878. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:32 AM (#4291563)
So has anyone in this thread gone on record as predicting a Romney win? (I couldn't check the thread at work yesterday and am too "busy" to go through and try and figure it out)

It's hard to tell for sure, since Joe snarks at every poll that shows Obama ahead, but OTOH he's refused odds as high as 3 to 1 on betting sites like Intrade. But OTOOH, I'm sure he'll have something to say about Nate Silver's latest post:

Nov. 2: For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased

Friday’s polling should make it easy to discern why Mr. Obama has the Electoral College advantage. There were 22 polls of swing states published Friday. Of these, Mr. Obama led in 19 polls, and two showed a tie. Mitt Romney led in just one of the surveys, a Mason-Dixon poll of Florida.

Although the fact that Mr. Obama held the lead in so many polls is partly coincidental — there weren’t any polls of North Carolina on Friday, for instance, which is Mr. Romney’s strongest battleground state — they nevertheless represent powerful evidence against the idea that the race is a “tossup.” A tossup race isn’t likely to produce 19 leads for one candidate and one for the other — any more than a fair coin is likely to come up heads 19 times and tails just once in 20 tosses. (The probability of a fair coin doing so is about 1 chance in 50,000.)

Instead, Mr. Romney will have to hope that the coin isn’t fair, and instead has been weighted to Mr. Obama’s advantage. In other words, he’ll have to hope that the polls have been biased in Mr. Obama’s favor.


He then goes on to say this:

[W]e’ve about reached the point where if Mr. Romney wins, it can only be because the polls have been biased against him. Almost all of the chance that Mr. Romney has in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, about 16 percent to win the Electoral College, reflects this possibility.

Yes, of course: most of the arguments that the polls are necessarily biased against Mr. Romney reflect little more than wishful thinking.

Nevertheless, these arguments are potentially more intellectually coherent than the ones that propose that the race is “too close to call.” It isn’t. If the state polls are right, then Mr. Obama will win the Electoral College. If you can’t acknowledge that after a day when Mr. Obama leads 19 out of 20 swing-state polls, then you should abandon the pretense that your goal is to inform rather than entertain the public.

But the state polls may not be right. They could be biased. Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16 percent.


And as I'm sure Joe knows, Nate's now got Obama's chances of re-election at 83.7%, so that'll keep him busy for awhile.
   879. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:33 AM (#4291564)
#877

*slow clap*
   880. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4291565)
Also, part of me has always wondered if Jolly St Nick and Ray are the accounts of conjoined twins. Arguing virtually rather than in person.

We've actually met in person at a Camden Yards meetup, but maybe it was Joe in disguise. I'm a very trusting kinda guy.
   881. 'Spos Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:41 AM (#4291566)
879
Canadian humour.
   882. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4291570)
Serious question, with all this talk of systematic bias and party ID and such: aggregated final national polls in 2008 were pretty accurate in predicting the popular vote; do we know if they were similarly accurate in predicting the exit poll party ID breakdown?
   883. bunyon Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:56 AM (#4291574)
Either Benghazi or Fast and Furious would be better basis for impeachment that what we had last go round.

Not saying they should do it. Just that those are actual issues that, if the President could be shown to be directly involved in covering up, would matter a lot more than what Clinton was impeached for.


I also don't think they will. Surely they learned their lesson last time. Right?
   884. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 03, 2012 at 10:59 AM (#4291575)
Just for giggles: "winner of the Electoral College to lose the popular vote" is up to 26% on intrade.
   885. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4291576)
had secondary accounts for posting snark or in off-topic threads they'd prefer not to have associated to their professional reputations.


I've always wondered about people who DO use third accounts, if it's worth the effort.
Having to log in and out all the time, having to remember which account said what, and who replied to whom...

It would be too much of a hassle for someone as lazy as me.
   886. Spahn Insane Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4291580)
I also don't think they will. Surely they learned their lesson last time. Right?

You're a funny guy, bunyon.

Eastern sunrises are less predictable than Republican overreach.
   887. bunyon Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4291581)
You're a funny guy, bunyon.


Did you hear about the new drink, called "The Sandy"?

























It's a watered down Manhattan.



Thanks, I'm here all week.
   888. Lassus Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4291583)
   889. McCoy Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:19 AM (#4291584)
How does Benghazi trigger an impeachment?

I guess Democrats are glad that Gore wasn't President during 9/11 or else he'd be sitting in a jail somewhere right now.
   890. bunyon Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:21 AM (#4291586)
I wasn't suggesting what we know now about Benghazi should lead to impeachment. But it has been put forward that there was malfeasance and cover-up.


IF - IF - there was, then that is the sort of topic and behavior that I think should be the basis for impeachment. Malfeasance in the duties of president. Not ordinary citizen-like crimes.
   891. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4291587)
879
Canadian humour.


As a fellow Canadian, I could tell.
   892. Lassus Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4291588)
I like mocking Stossel more, but here's a Washington Post timeline that impeachers would probably have to work around. (It being part of a longer and admittedly lefty article that discounts the righty contentions of malfeasance.) I mean, if you're amongst the "LIES, ALL LIES ALL THE TIME" types (which I don't think you are, bunyon) when it comes to these things, it won't matter; but for everyone else it might seem a little too much to work with.
   893. McCoy Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4291589)
Speaking of BTF alter-egos, here's John Stossel pissed that Christie won't allow price gouging during emergencies. Where have we heard this before?

He's right. Price fixing is stupid and detrimental to solving a problem.
   894. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4291590)
Can someone explain to me what the Benghazi "impeachment" would be about?
What exactly was it that Obama did that was impeachable?
   895. formerly dp Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4291591)
Also, part of me has always wondered if Jolly St Nick and Ray are the accounts of conjoined twins. Arguing virtually rather than in person.


I think pulling off a collectively-authored persona would be the more impressive accomplishment.
   896. villageidiom Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4291592)
The regulars that *didn't* have alternate accounts seemed to be the exception (no names due to privacy concerns).


I have three accounts. No sock puppets; the other two accounts are used in ways similar to the Bearded Wizard from old Primer, with no real content produced nor attempted. This account, at least it's attempted.
   897. bunyon Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4291593)
I mean, if you're amongst the "LIES, ALL LIES ALL THE TIME" types (which I don't think you are, bunyon)

I'm not. I'm saying that if the stuff those folks are saying happened, he should be impeached. I don't think they did happen though. Just that it is a weighty and serious allegation (and, hence, I think it shoud be gotten to the bottom of - once someone accuses the president of something like that, someone has to go down, either the president or the accusers).

The general idea I have of the accusation is that the Obama administration knew of plans to attack and knew the attack was underway hours before the ambassador fell and then, during the attack ordered units that could help to stand down and, afterward, ordered folks in the know not to talk.

I DO NOT think this is what happened. But, if it did, then, yes, I think he should be impeached. It is exactly the sort of thing one should impeach a president for - unlike lying about sex.

I also think, if any actual officials make this accusation and can't back it up or are shown to be making it up, they should be impeached.
   898. Spahn Insane Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4291594)
Can someone explain to me what the Benghazi "impeachment" would be about?
What exactly was it that Obama did that was impeachable?


Hey, what do the merits have to do with it? (FTR, I agree with you.)
   899. Spahn Insane Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4291595)
It's a watered down Manhattan.

Thanks, I'm here all week.


Awful though it is to admit, I laughed.
   900. Lassus Posted: November 03, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4291596)
He's right. Price fixing is stupid and detrimental to solving a problem.

Not snark, question: $25 per gallon gas solves which problem in NJ at the moment?
Page 9 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Page rendered in 1.0277 seconds
52 querie(s) executed